Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Cost of Not Getting Tested for Coronavirus: A $10K ER Bill

thecity.nyc

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 175 posts

Re: The Cost of Not Getting Tested for Coronavirus: A $10K ER Bill

#101

Post by jfk13 »

______---______ wrote: post #74
CydeWeys wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meanwhile, I went to the emergency room in a hospital with my girlfriend in London two years ago and it was free for her. We're Americans. Guess which country has better health outcomes.

>Guess which country has better health outcomes. The US, by all objective measures. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_quality_o... It's actually not uncommon for Brits to travel to America to pay for treatments not available on the national health or to avoid the often years-long waiting lists.

On the other hand, https://www.salon.com/2018/03/05/americans-still-have-to-go-...

Re: The Cost of Not Getting Tested for Coronavirus: A $10K ER Bill

#102

Post by jacobush »

platetone wrote: post #43
CydeWeys wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gonna go out on a limb and assume you have good health insurance. Many (most?) Americans do not. I'm on an HDHP for example, so the first several thousand dollars in medical expenses per year come directly out of my pocket before insurance starts helping at all.

i work for a tech company in the fortune 500 top 25... i would assume the best insurance possible, still killing us (paid nearly $7000 out of pocket last year + the actual premium costs of several thousand more). i've got three small kids including one with a heart condition, so it's particularly bad right now.

And I got downvoted here for saying that I would require a LOT higher salary to move from Sweden to the US. Your example is why.

Re: The Cost of Not Getting Tested for Coronavirus: A $10K ER Bill

#103

Post by jacobush »

jimbob45 wrote: post #32
godzillabrennus wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People take UBER to the hospital now instead of an ambulance. #Merica

IMHO, you're mis-stating the problem. One should take an uber/friend to the hospital if the ailment is not time-sensitive or in need of ongoing treatment so that the ambulances are freed up for more critical patients. Ambulances should have some level of cost associated with them to dissuade using them for minor ailments. Should that level of cost be thousands and thousands of dollars? Probably not.

Shouldn’t dispatch triage if you need an ambulance or not?

Re: The Cost of Not Getting Tested for Coronavirus: A $10K ER Bill

#104

Post by CydeWeys »

sailfast wrote: post #67
CydeWeys wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gonna go out on a limb and assume you have good health insurance. Many (most?) Americans do not. I'm on an HDHP for example, so the first several thousand dollars in medical expenses per year come directly out of my pocket before insurance starts helping at all.

Right, but you also benefit from the fact that it's an HDHP, right? Must you be on an HDHP (because the other plan is too expensive, or because another plan is not offered) or did you choose the HDHP even when presented with the options? The big up-front deductible and an HSA is pretty much the point of the plan, and it's mostly advantageous to those that are young and/or don't have to go to the doctor that often, wi…

The HDHP works out in years in which you need no medical treatment beyond the covered annual physical. Once you start needing anything, it ends up being a worse option. I discovered this a few years ago when I broke my ankle.

The big upfront deductible seems like exactly the wrong way to structure a healthcare plan, as it disincentives getting treatment until things get really bad.

Re: The Cost of Not Getting Tested for Coronavirus: A $10K ER Bill

#105

Post by CydeWeys »

jacobush wrote: post #102
platetone wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i work for a tech company in the fortune 500 top 25... i would assume the best insurance possible, still killing us (paid nearly $7000 out of pocket last year + the actual premium costs of several thousand more). i've got three small kids including one with a heart condition, so it's particularly bad right now.

And I got downvoted here for saying that I would require a LOT higher salary to move from Sweden to the US. Your example is why.

A $5k bump in salary should probably make up the difference in the average year. That's not a "LOT higher salary" by my reckoning. Hell, the difference in tax rate alone would easily make up for that, even if the US salary is lower (which seems likely to be opposite of what would actually happen).

Re: The Cost of Not Getting Tested for Coronavirus: A $10K ER Bill

#106

Post by jopsen »

jimbob45 wrote: post #32
godzillabrennus wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People take UBER to the hospital now instead of an ambulance. #Merica

IMHO, you're mis-stating the problem. One should take an uber/friend to the hospital if the ailment is not time-sensitive or in need of ongoing treatment so that the ambulances are freed up for more critical patients. Ambulances should have some level of cost associated with them to dissuade using them for minor ailments. Should that level of cost be thousands and thousands of dollars? Probably not.

Don't need to be a cost... We could just have 911 send a taxi instead.

I know in other countries ambulances are not always dispatched, because 911 operators decide it's not critical.

Mostly this decision is correct, but from time to time a heart patient dies. (Maybe the alternative should be to send a taxi)

Re: The Cost of Not Getting Tested for Coronavirus: A $10K ER Bill

#107

Post by kspacewalk2 »

jariel wrote: post #87
munk-a wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That ambulance bill is insane. Up here in Canada ambulance charges are paid out of pocket but my wife had a low blood pressure emergency and got an ambulance called and was only out 300$ for a three mile drive (through dense city streets even). I'm even of the opinion that that bill was a bit excessive.

$300 seems low. 'The distance' is basically irrelevant. You're paying for a highly available, rapid response team to be prepared for almost any medical emergency, 24/7, literally almost at the press of a button. 'Preparedness' is expensive. What happened if the Ambulance broke down? Or a medic decided to say f-it and skipped a day. Or the phone didn't work. Or the critical piece of gear didn't work. Or ooops ran out…

$300 is a user fee, a fraction of the actual cost, which in Canada we do pay for through an insurance scheme called taxes. (Most other medical expenses are covered through our single payer insurance, funded though provincial income taxes, but ambulance service is paid for by property taxes, I think).

Re: The Cost of Not Getting Tested for Coronavirus: A $10K ER Bill

#108

Post by [deleted] »

pjc50 wrote: post #97
jariel wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$300 seems low. 'The distance' is basically irrelevant. You're paying for a highly available, rapid response team to be prepared for almost any medical emergency, 24/7, literally almost at the press of a button. 'Preparedness' is expensive. What happened if the Ambulance broke down? Or a medic decided to say f-it and skipped a day. Or the phone didn't work. Or the critical piece of gear didn't work. Or ooops ran out…

As with so many things in healthcare, if it's such a great system, why isn't it used for the military? Medevac helicopters are really expensive, so why not make individual troops decide whether their case merits a few year's pay?

[deleted]

Re: The Cost of Not Getting Tested for Coronavirus: A $10K ER Bill

#109

Post by [deleted] »

crispinb wrote: post #39
lostgame wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You're exploiting an ambiguity in the word 'unavoidable'. Of course any individual manager (hospital or insurance industry) could 'avoid' predatory pricing. But the system of capitalism is designed to prevent people who would practise such avoidance doing so - either by excluding them from management roles (the sewage farm metaphor), or forcing them to conform to the ideology of greed. An unmitigated exploitative cap…

[deleted]

Re: The Cost of Not Getting Tested for Coronavirus: A $10K ER Bill

#110

Post by jacobush »

paxys wrote: post #99
lostgame wrote: post #2

As a Canadian who has also lived in America, I am consistently mortified by the costs of health care in the states. Are they intentionally designed to force the lower class into even more poverty (I’ve seen $50 being charged for a pill of Advil - first hand) - or is it just an unintended side effect? I find it harder to believe it’s accidental than intentional. EDIT: Due to jiveturkey’s pathetic and wholly inaccurate…

It isn't intentionally designed, just a side effect of the system as it exists today. There are two ways to bring healthcare costs down in America: 1. Insure everyone — no exceptions (by the government or through private insurance) 2. Let hospitals (and ERs) deny care to those that can't pay Since neither of them is happening anytime soon, Advil is going to keep costing $50.

No. Cost per outcome is still higher. More is wrong.
Post reply on HN